I really wish this would have happened 10-12 years during the GSOT era, that team would have been a huge hit overseas with how fun they were to watch. But hey, I'll take it. Hopefully by then this team will have an identity as a smash-mouth defense._________________

i dont know if this is good for you guys out in st louis. I heard some speculation from the PTI guys that this move may have something to do with LA. But then again its just speculation_________________
19H6Wk3tLLaBk8tHME1JPiWsMZv8V4EzgZ

- The St. Louis Rams are dropping plans to play home games in London in 2013 and 2014, citing a need to focus on improvements to their stadium.

The Rams said Monday that they will go ahead with plans to use a home game to play the New England Patriots at Wembley Stadium on Oct. 28 while withdrawing their commitment for home games in London the following two seasons.

- The St. Louis Rams are dropping plans to play home games in London in 2013 and 2014, citing a need to focus on improvements to their stadium.

The Rams said Monday that they will go ahead with plans to use a home game to play the New England Patriots at Wembley Stadium on Oct. 28 while withdrawing their commitment for home games in London the following two seasons.

I hope your right, but I don't see how not playing in London assures anything. Why would this stop them from moving to LA?_________________

- The St. Louis Rams are dropping plans to play home games in London in 2013 and 2014, citing a need to focus on improvements to their stadium.

The Rams said Monday that they will go ahead with plans to use a home game to play the New England Patriots at Wembley Stadium on Oct. 28 while withdrawing their commitment for home games in London the following two seasons.

I hope your right, but I don't see how not playing in London assures anything. Why would this stop them from moving to LA?

Would you move your franchise to LA after dropping tons of cash fixing a stadium at your current location?_________________

- The St. Louis Rams are dropping plans to play home games in London in 2013 and 2014, citing a need to focus on improvements to their stadium.

The Rams said Monday that they will go ahead with plans to use a home game to play the New England Patriots at Wembley Stadium on Oct. 28 while withdrawing their commitment for home games in London the following two seasons.

I hope your right, but I don't see how not playing in London assures anything. Why would this stop them from moving to LA?

Would you move your franchise to LA after dropping tons of cash fixing a stadium at your current location?

To be honest, it's already been known they want to make the Dome into a "first tier" stadium. Even before the Rams agreed to go to London.

I just don't get what's changed between now and then. And still don't get what not going to London has to do with moving to LA._________________

- The St. Louis Rams are dropping plans to play home games in London in 2013 and 2014, citing a need to focus on improvements to their stadium.

The Rams said Monday that they will go ahead with plans to use a home game to play the New England Patriots at Wembley Stadium on Oct. 28 while withdrawing their commitment for home games in London the following two seasons.

I hope your right, but I don't see how not playing in London assures anything. Why would this stop them from moving to LA?

Would you move your franchise to LA after dropping tons of cash fixing a stadium at your current location?

To be honest, it's already been known they want to make the Dome into a "first tier" stadium. Even before the Rams agreed to go to London.

I just don't get what's changed between now and then. And still don't get what not going to London has to do with moving to LA.

Nothing has changed on paper, but this move shows me that they are intent on renovating the stadium (i.e. what they needed to get done to keep the team in STL). This is their way of saying that they want to stick around to see the dome get loud and full of fans again like it was 10 years ago and that they're not too concerned with displaying the team name elsewhere.

I'm normally not one to buy into "signs" or saying "I have a feeling that..." but I really do buy what's going on in my mind. I can't guarantee anything, but in my opinion if the franchise owners really didn't care about keeping the team in STL, they would do the bare minimum of what was required renovation wise and spend the fewest dollars possible just to get by until the LA opportunity landed in their lap. This move shows a much more aggressive intent on keeping the team in the Lou, and a total lack of lethargy._________________

StLunatic88Joined: 10 Jan 2006Posts: 7822Location: How good is your Good?

Posted: Tue Aug 14, 2012 10:04 am Post subject:

We were never going to play in London 3 years in a row. I said it then, and its obvious now. It was a ploy by Kroenke. It was a move to gain leverage, to get himself a bargaining chip, and even though we dont like to say it this way, it was a threat to the City of St Louis. Not a malicious threat, but more of a wakeup call, saying "Hey, I can move this thing, Im not messing around so get your act together"

So now Stan has played the first hand, he "conceded" on this to get the ball rolling. Its very much like what we saw with the Lockout, there will be alot of things being asked for and demanded that they will be boisterous about, then suddenly let the other side have that and pretend to be the bigger man, just in order to get something they want more later on.

Did any of you pay attention to the Minnesota situation? It took forever, but that was also the same time as the city getting a new baseball stadium, so it complicated things.

This move has absolutely ZERO to do with LA, and we arent moving there. Thats Stan's ultimate trump card that he can play when he eventually really wants something, and we will hear it come up in this process, but its all empty threats. No one has ever been able to refute this part of the argument: Stan Kroenke bought 40% of the franchise just to bring them from LA to St Louis, he isnt going to finally get 100% and then move them back to LA.

I still think the endgame for Stan is to move the Team out to the county. To set up the Stadium He wants, to have big conventions, concerts, and most of all Soccer matches on Top of the 10 Rams games per year. As for now he is trying to get a number that he will have to pay the City to let him do that, and what conditions/royalties he will have to pay once he does.

I just don't get what's changed between now and then. And still don't get what not going to London has to do with moving to LA.

The CVC were very adamant that they did not like the commitment to London. The CVC sent out their proposal and then the Rams committed to cutting one home game a year for the next three years. These negotiations are about a balance of where money is coming from. The city is going to contribute money, and they (rightfully) feel that if they are going to contribute 100s of millions of dollars, that the Rams should have a full 8 game season here and that the commitment to London was counterproductive to the purpose of the negotiations.

I agree with the decision to drop the commitment past 2012, but I certainly hope that they explore renewing some sort of commitment to play in London in the future wants the stadium negotiations are done.

I really don't see why so many fans were against this. Obviously there is the perceived disadvantage by only having home field advantage for 7 games, but you haven't really heard teams complain about the effect the game has on their season. The Patriots loved it. And not to call anyone out, but I've read the gameday threads on this forum for years. I would say less than 10% of the contributors to this forum actually go to games semi-regularly. I can't name one single season ticket holder amongst us (not saying there aren't any, obviously some just don't announce it). If you aren't going to the games, why do you care where they are played? The London game is always televised, which is the majority if us' method for watching the Rams.

I fully agree that, for the purpose of negotiations, the commitment should be dropped. But I also recognize this was a great business opportunity for Stan Kroenke and the Rams and could provide a real solid platform for exposure. Disappointed this didn't work out.

StLunatic88 wrote:

It was a ploy by Kroenke. It was a move to gain leverage, to get himself a bargaining chip, and even though we dont like to say it this way, it was a threat to the City of St Louis. Not a malicious threat, but more of a wakeup call, saying "Hey, I can move this thing, Im not messing around so get your act together"

A very good point as well.

And I also agree about Kroenke's potential interest in the UK market. If the NFL does expand over the pond in the future, why not put one of your most valuable and powerful owners who ALSO owns a football team over there (Arsenal)? Playing the Rams overseas allows Kroenke to show off Kroenke Sports Enterprises to potential investors and could help get the ball rolling on stadium funding, relocation fees, etc.._________________Bjoern Werner Tunes Up for Senior Season